[PoB] Weapon platforms and PoBs part 2

[darkwind]

Also. What is wrong with area of denial? I wouldnt want any enemies hanging out near my base.

Nothing, if not count that freelancer have privateer-kind gameplay, which is not really good with out-of-system-design area-denial. I.e. area denial bases simple ruin gameplay implied by system designer.

Then tackle that with rules. POBs arent allowed within 30k of mining sites either.
You can move all those manhatten bases away from the planet.
Doesnt really need destroying any POB protections.
Can't wait to just sit outside a police POB pirating the suppliers and the base just sitting there watching.

Pob protections will be not decreased in any way during this change.
During testing, it will be checked to be working for most paranoid situations;b
Adjustments will be made, if there will be some problems

Heck, even multiple pobs will continue being able to defend each other

[Bellepheron]

PoBs take a lot of time, credits and effort to create. There are those who like nothing more than to destroy PoBs for very little reason other than they have nothing creative to do. For that reason Weapon Platforms are a must and Megaera is right to say that the rules tackle PoBs that are positioned in unsocial locations.

[Haste]

I feel like people are drawing the exact opposite conclusions of what this change actually means.

Platforms are currently fairly useless against a competent sieging force. A while ago I was part of a siege against a base with a decent chunk of platforms. Our solution to that problem was to have one player in a gunboat press one of his TS keys and hold it down for a couple hours (can tab out or press enter to keep it pressed, if you want). This made the platforms permanently miss and kept all our Battleships safe and sound.

Platforms are currently an area denial weapon: they annoy people and make them not want to play in a certain area. They are of very little use in situations where PoBs are actually threatened*.

We could make platforms do a better job at defending from sieges if this change passed. They could be more accurate at longer ranges against capital ships, the anti-small-ship platforms could effectively create a deathzone for smaller ships to prevent them distracting the anti-cap platforms, etc. However, we currently cannot do so as half the game universe would be rendered unplayable by angry PoBs.

*) Unless you go full New London, of course.

Just tell me why a base should not be shooting at an enemy ship? All NPC bases do it.

Very well. I have an alternate proposal, then: reduce the combat effectiveness of a base's combined weapon platforms to be comparable to a Station armed with standard Station weaponry. If you want to compare apples to oranges, allow me to turn the oranges into apples.

[Megaera]

PoBs take a lot of time, credits and effort to create. There are those who like nothing more than to destroy PoBs for very little reason other than they have nothing creative to do. For that reason Weapon Platforms are a must and Megaera is right to say that the rules tackle PoBs that are positioned in unsocial locations.

I can give you another situation:
Siege declaration is issued. People want to prepare for the siege, but cant, because the enemy group will just camp the base the entire time. weapon platforms would at least keep them at a distance.

As I said. I can see alot of issues with this idle mode. First minefields get nerfed. Secondly all the cap patrols in capitals were removed, now this. What is the next step? remove npc base guns? Remove NPCs?

Is literally everything getting nerfed to oblivion? Please don't make Sirius one big safespace. This doesnt do anyone good.

---

---

Matriarch Of the Gen'an Chrysanthemums - Ishikawa Aya
Gen'an Cell Information - Recruitment - Communications Network

---

Megaera - Ishikawa Masako
Feedback - Data Storage - Birth of a goddess

---

[LuckyOne]

Pob protections will be not decreased in any way during this change.
During testing, it will be checked to be working for most paranoid situations;b
Adjustments will be made, if there will be some problems

The protections afforded to the POB of course won't be affected by this change. The protections that the POB affords to other allied vessels will be.

I see POBs not only as RP assets, but also local "force multipliers" for anyone unfortunate to be caught in an uneven fight with a "dishonorable" enemy that outnumbers him (same can be said for NPC cap patrols).

By removing this utility from them you will only make the Unlawfuls even less likely to actually ever want to build one.


There is however an alternative solution... If you can't make platform respawns spend munitions, why not make "trigger-happy" mode spend munitions (or something else... ) for every hour it is on?

That way one could still activate the functionality on-demand, but it would come at a cost of increased effort to supply it.

[Megaera]

I feel like people are drawing the exact opposite conclusions of what this change actually means.

Platforms are currently fairly useless against a competent sieging force. A while ago I was part of a siege against a base with a decent chunk of platforms. Our solution to that problem was to have one player in a gunboat press one of his TS keys and hold it down for a couple hours (can tab out or press enter to keep it pressed, if you want). This made the platforms permanently miss and kept all our Battleships safe and sound.

Platforms are currently an area denial weapon: they annoy people and make them not want to play in a certain area. They are of very little use in situations where PoBs are actually threatened*.

We could make platforms do a better job at defending from sieges if this change passed. They could be more accurate at longer ranges against capital ships, the anti-small-ship platforms could effectively create a deathzone for smaller ships to prevent them distracting the anti-cap platforms, etc. However, we currently cannot do so as half the game universe would be rendered unplayable by angry PoBs.

*) Unless you go full New London, of course.

Just tell me why a base should not be shooting at an enemy ship? All NPC bases do it.

Very well. I have an alternate proposal, then: reduce the combat effectiveness of a base's combined weapon platforms to be comparable to a Station armed with standard Station weaponry. If you want to compare apples to oranges, allow me to turn the oranges into apples.

Ah this description makes alot more sense. I had a completely different picture about the mechanics in my head.

---

---

Matriarch Of the Gen'an Chrysanthemums - Ishikawa Aya
Gen'an Cell Information - Recruitment - Communications Network

---

Megaera - Ishikawa Masako
Feedback - Data Storage - Birth of a goddess

---

[Binski]

One simple solution to WP's:

Ammo requirements! Its not so bad if a base has a bunch of WP's deployed, players can learn what IFF the base is and either change their reputation, or contact the base specifically to be added to the dock list. When bases are just generally hostile to passing ships, its likely poor administration by the base owner, or poor choice of IFF.

If WP's are endangering your route, its unlikely the base will care if you are rep-locked as hostile anyways. Otherwise anyone can be added to a base's dock list, and a base remains non-engaging of those not hostile anyways. So what bases will really need this change? Military bases that wish to not fire at anyone under any circumstances? Can't they set their defmod level to not fire at anyone already? So I suppose to give a base the option of having WP's and turning them off should be in there. But I don't think its good to set that as a default.

For a variety of reasons, also setting ammo requirements for WP respawns is (to me) the best way to balance out the impact of WP's and bases that use them. It would mean a base's WP's could be neutralized without destroying the base, as you'd only need to keep blowing them up until the base's ammo ran dry, and none respawn. The module would be there just not place a WP until stocked. Not only would that change the tactics of dealing with and using bases, but add a new consumable commodity to use, to transport, that can be valuable to buy from other players, or confiscate/pirate!

So I suggest for the next change try making it so a base must have at least 100 units of Munitions or Armaments to respawn a WP, and it eats the 100 units. So if you have 5000 units of the commodity on your base, that's 50 respawns divided among how many WP's you have. During sieges, on top of repair materials and fuel, ammo for your WP's would also be a thing. In this case, bases that deploy WP's only even have them deployed if they are kept stocked with ammo.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

[Megaera]

One simple solution to WP's:

Ammo requirements! Its not so bad if a base has a bunch of WP's deployed, players can learn what IFF the base is and either change their reputation, or contact the base specifically to be added to the dock list. When bases are just generally hostile to passing ships, its likely poor administration by the base owner, or poor choice of IFF.

If WP's are endangering your route, its unlikely the base will care if you are rep-locked as hostile anyways. Otherwise anyone can be added to a base's dock list, and a base remains non-engaging of those not hostile anyways. So what bases will really need this change? Military bases that wish to not fire at anyone under any circumstances? Can't they set their defmod level to not fire at anyone already? So I suppose to give a base the option of having WP's and turning them off should be in there. But I don't think its good to set that as a default.

For a variety of reasons, also setting ammo requirements for WP respawns is (to me) the best way to balance out the impact of WP's and bases that use them. It would mean a base's WP's could be neutralized without destroying the base, as you'd only need to keep blowing them up until the base's ammo ran dry, and none respawn. The module would be there just not place a WP until stocked. Not only would that change the tactics of dealing with and using bases, but add a new consumable commodity to use, to transport, that can be valuable to buy from other players, or confiscate/pirate!

So I suggest for the next change try making it so a base must have at least 100 units of Munitions or Armaments to respawn a WP, and it eats the 100 units. So if you have 5000 units of the commodity on your base, that's 50 respawns divided among how many WP's you have. During sieges, on top of repair materials and fuel, ammo for your WP's would also be a thing. In this case, bases that deploy WP's only even have them deployed if they are kept stocked with ammo.

This doesn't work as weapon platforms are literal paper. 1 snac shot will kill them. You can clear them all out in a few minutes then with 10,000 munitions

---

---

Matriarch Of the Gen'an Chrysanthemums - Ishikawa Aya
Gen'an Cell Information - Recruitment - Communications Network

---

Megaera - Ishikawa Masako
Feedback - Data Storage - Birth of a goddess

---

[Binski]

This doesn't work as weapon platforms are literal paper. 1 snac shot will kill them. You can clear them all out in a few minutes then with 10,000 munitions

Ok good point but to that I'd simply say go ahead and buff them a bit to prevent that, since the toss up is you could keep destroying them until they stop spawning and you can at least neutralize a base without destroying it. I also would expect bases to be harassed more than sieged, as people could attack them just to wear down your ammo stocks (as in terrorists attacking lawful bases, or even Core vs Order and they attack each other's bases to at least leave them dry or keep them out of ammo, keep the other side consuming).

Thats because smaller ships could be used in those attacks, and not require the caps except for long range WP elimination or actual sieging of the base. But people could do stuff about the threat or area denied by a base with snubs and gunboats, if they can handle it. As long as the ranges are set right that would make for some interesting fights I think.

On the other side, those determined to keep their base safe or to use it to secure an area will also need to keep running the ammo in.